Lamb v. Almy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Lamb v. Almy

36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 586

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided July 21, 1896·No. Miscellaneous Petitions, No. 2405.·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not think that it appears with sufficient clearness that Albert A. Baker was counsel for Dr. Lamb, as well as Mrs. Lamb, in the transaction to which the testimony to be taken relates, to warrant the magistrate in compelling Baker to disclose communications made to him by Mrs. Lamb by virtue of the relation between them of counsel and client.

The writ of mandamus is therefore denied and the petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We do not think that it appears with sufficient clearness that Albert A. Baker was counsel for Dr. Lamb, as well as Mrs. Lamb, in the transaction to which the testimony to be taken relates, to warrant the magistrate in compelling Baker to disclose communications made to him by Mrs. Lamb by virtue of the relation between them of counsel and client.

The writ of mandamus is therefore denied and the petition dismissed.

Lamb v. Almy, 36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 586 (R.I. 1896).

Pincite

36 A. 1132 (Lamb v. Almy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.